I don’t get it either. What happened to Jim Davidson’s ‘Chalkie’ jokes? They were not insulting or offensive, yet because they stereotyped black people, some sensitive little liberal soul had those sort of jokes, er, blacklisted.

If they ban gay jokes, drag queens may as well give up and go home.

When the police resort to arresting a half-cut student for suggesting a horse might be gay then there is something clearly wrong with their application of that law.

In the absence of a common sense approach to policing hate crime it is inevitable that something like this would happen.

The usual bilge on this post I observe!

.

Exactly. What this amendment would do is send out the message that being LGBT is a ‘lifestyle choice’ as those offensive idiots in some ‘christian’ groups keep trying to insist. That’s why it’s an abhorrent amendment.

Maybe it’s just my reading of it, but the views expressed in that letter as quoted in this article don’t sound very tolerant to me.

“The recent case of the Christian grandmother interrogated in her living room about a letter she wrote to her local council is just the latest example ”

Oh, yes, poor old innocent Granny, victimised by those nasty police. What next, eh? Soon they’ll be warning dear old pensioners that they mustn’t call their black neighbours n*ggers.

If people are allowed to say derogatory things about LGBT people then racism should be allowed too. But it won’t be – because we are STILL being treated as somehow less than any other minority.

homophopia exists – islamophobia does not exist. neither does christianophobia or buddhismphobia. Islam is the second largest religon on earth and therefore an enormous power which it uses to oppress women and gays. But islamists cleverly use the language of the oppressed when claiming that islamophobia exists.

The preachings of the Xian Church and the interpretations of the Imams can lead to our injury and death: that needs quashing.

For the same reason why Fred Phelps and his bunch of f_ckwit “church” followers were also banned. You said it yourself, what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander.

I despise censorship, but I think there needs to be a line drawn in the sand. It’s very difficult to define exactly where that line should be though, but I think people are definitely becoming majorly over-sensitive about what people say, and should really learn to grow a thicker skin, rather than resort to legal action just because someone called them names. Had that happened even 30 years ago, they would have been laughed out of court.

It is not a question of gay people being “free to do what they want”. The real issue is that gay people want to be accepted as being the way they were made, a way they didn’t choose to be, just like straight people didn’t actually choose to be straight.

I don’t see why homophobes should be entitled to propagate hatred under the guise of discriminatory free-pass legislation masquerading as freedom of speech. The alternative is for everybody to be allowed to vilify everybody else as and when their whim, or prejudices, drive them. That’s not a recipe for a civilised society based on respect.

If we want to be free to do what we want, they should be free to do what they want.